Rating Vote:

Amazing Fuel Economy

11/10/2009 1:06 PM

This guy just left my office after a brief visit to tell me that he has "invented" a way to increase fuel efficiency by grinding a groove in the throttle body of any normally aspirated ICE. I asked him for some supporting data and this is what he offered.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/10/2009 1:40 PM

Ask him to show you some dyno results, before and after mod. If there is a significant increase in power, that will result in the engine not having to work as hard at the same speed which will mean better economy.

I am a skeptic when it comes to 'testimonials'. Yes showing increased mpg is good, but how are they calculating it? I always reset my trip meter when I fill up and used to keep a log of mpg, now I know the average and use it as an indicator of how I am driving and if I have a problem. For instance, I know I am down 2 to 3 mpg right now and it supports what my mechanic told me about my check engine light code.

I also can tell if I don't get as much gas in the tank because I don't top off as much. If I take the time to fill it to the rim I can get another 20 to 30 miles on a long trip.

So lets see some dyno results then perhaps I will contribute to his research, otherwise I need to save my money for my own Idea's and research (please send contributions!).

Drew

__________________
Question: What is going on with the American's Government? Response: Who is John Galt?

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/10/2009 1:45 PM

Be very wary of gains of up to 100% mentioned as this sounds like the result of a simple engine tuning on a badly tuned engine. If you are interested have your vehicle properly tuned first and then take him up on his offers

What we do with our modification does not change the amount of air, it simply changes the way it behaves. Normally it just gets sucked in and there it is. With Modification 1-A, the air literally DANCES into the cylinder in the shape of a doughnut..

Technically,what we're doing is creating a pressure wave inside the intake manifold. By cutting a carefully designed set of grooves into the throttle body (or carburetor) at the throttle plate, we cause the air to hesitate for a fraction of a second. Then the air is released, rushing into the combustion chamber

Hmmmm, why does this sound familiar (probably because I have seen similar modifications or products offered that propose to do the same thing).

For more information on properly testing car engine power and MPG gains see numerous previous threads on CR4.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/10/2009 2:32 PM

Gibberish. Complete bunk.

The claim that widespread computer control of injection took place in 1998 is moronic, and off by about 2 decades.

He claims that his principle is roughly the same as the many turbulators, etc, none of which work at all. There is no reason to expect that such modifications or devices should work -- they are based on profound misconceptions of the areas in which engines can be (and have been) improved. The desired amount of turbulence is designed into the intake system, angling of the intake ports, and distribution and extent of squish area between the piston and head. If we want more turbulence, designing it in is a no brainer. But more turbulence means more drag (no matter how the turbulence is created), which reduces induction efficiency. Therefore, real engineers balance one goal against another, with careful optimization.

Unless he tampers with the mixture control (itself pointless for longevity, overall drivability, emissions, etc.) any modification of the throttle body has only one main effect -- a change in the amount of air delivered for a particular throttle setting -- in other words, precisely the same effect as simply opening or closing the throttle slightly. The secondary effect is to change turbulence to a sub-optimal level. The mixture itself is precisely controlled by the computer, and must be within tight limits to avoid damage to the catalytic converter, and for the engine to produce its rated horsepower.

Every modern engine runs at almost perfect stoichiometric air fuel ratio all the time (other than during warmup and full-throttle operation.) Changing efficiency, then, has to do with differences in valve timing, differences in compression ratio, differences in relative engine loading (smaller, more heaviliy loaded having an advantage over larger engines operating under lighter load), and smaller differences in friction control, heat loss control, accessory efficeincies, etc.

Unbelievable as it may seem, the real, educated, engineers responsible for taking typical sedan engines from 30 hp per liter to over 60 hp per liter (and even 90 hp per liter or more) in the last several decades, all while dramatically reducing both emissions (by an order of magnitude or more) and specific fuel consumption (fuel consumed vs hp produced) are not the idiots that scammy garage tinkerers would like us to believe. The Prius engine is 38% efficienct (without its hybrid system), about 50% better efficiency than the typical engine of a couple decades ago. Real engineers can and do achieve impressive gains.

Having other people "donate" $250 to the cause is a good gimick, albeit one already tried in the HHO world as well. If his breakthough modification actually worked, he could get it on the market much sooner, if he went to a university with a good dyno lab, and had his unit tested. But he's not going to do that, because dynos in the hands of an independent organization do not lie.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/10/2009 2:34 PM

I'm reasonably sure that this is the same guy who poisoned the HHO thread on the Aardvark forum ( http://aardvarkforums.co.nz/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1960&postdays=0&postorder=asc&amp;start=2580 ) posting as MrCarbJB.

He started out reasonably sensibly, but when challenged to produce supporting evidence for his claims he got more and more irrational, eventually lapsing into completely nonsensical religious babble.

If so, the man is a quack and he as no supporting evidence to back up his claims. If challenged on this he will tell you that you have to believe in it for it to work.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/12/2009 3:46 PM

Not what I do, although it is similar.

The nature of my (patent pending, before you ask) "Modification 1-A" is of putting a groove near the throttle plate.

However (and it is a BIG however) I found the shape of the groove to be critical to its success. Altering the shape has major effects on the shape of the wave created, and the wave is what does the work.

Not the groove. The groove only allows for an enhancement of the wave the downstroke of the engine already creates. It allows for the formation of a high pressure zone that builds, then releases as the piston completes the intake cycle.

Mr. Carb will tell you (as he has told me) what I am doing is substantially different. He encouraged my pursuit of a patent based on my configuration, and I did just that.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/10/2009 4:39 PM

I will present dynos to Lyn, and to anyone who asks. It is painfully obvious to me that new ideas are not questioned through this forum, but degraded and denied.

Please be aware that numerous HHO, magnet, additive and other pseudoscience and scam devices regarding cars have been assessed, discussed and throughly dis-proven here over the years by myself and others. I am not saying yours is one but it looks similar to previous scam devices (hence the comments here by others).

It goes without saying that extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence, so you are going about it the right way (but be aware that road tests are not accurate evidence due to the large number of variables. See previous threads on CR4 for more information).

If others are interested please see the numerous previous threads on CR4, also covered by myself and others was how to accurately measure the power and fuel usage results.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/11/2009 12:41 AM

Please lets not get into HHO again.

Of course, Ron is "HHOGadgetman" as you can see from his contact page on his website.

All he or any other promoter of apparent magic needs to do is provide BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) figures from a reputable source, with a university being among the best places. If there is a 10% improvement in BFSC (let alone the 25% - 200% these folks claim for turbulators, magnets, HHO units, damaged throttle bodies, solvents in the gas tank, etc. etc) then the promoter would be profoundly idiotic not to spend the small amount for a good series of dyno tests. (I've had some stuff like this done at world class universities for free -- just because a prof thought it would be fun, or instructive for students, etc. If this works as advertised, what a great student project to design and run the tests!)

A 10% fuel efficiency gain for a mod that would cost nothing in production (it is just a matter of making the shape "right" instead of the "wrong" shape that is used on what we thought were well-engineered cars) is worth many millions of dollars. One would be very foolish to delay legitimate testing and getting a licencing agreement in place... unless of course the device does not work. Then a good bet would be to promote the device on the web and ask for $250 "donations".

I wish Ron all the best in getting these tests done, and hope that he doesn't waste his time here, spinning his wheels. Seems to me it is his civic duty to avoid sitting on this great invention. I'd suggest Taylor as a good brand of fuel flow measurement equipment and dynos. The dyno used must be able to hold a load setting (rather than an inertia dyno which can only make quick runs with continuously increasing rpm) to get valid fuel flow data. This stuff is easy to do right, and every state has a few good dyno labs.

Plenty of university profs would love to get in on something this historic, something which defies all logic, so I'd be very surprised if Ron can not come back with a good solid university study in less than a month. Then... $millions for him will be on the way.

Ron may have misconstrued some of the posts here as being negative. We positively love new stuff that works -- that's what this site is all about. And when he shows us that his mod works as claimed, we will certainly cheer him on, just as we have cheered on other kewl stuff.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

02/23/2010 2:30 PM

If you engineers on this forum bother to use Google Scholar, you'll be really surprised to learn that HHO has been found, by peer-reviewed science, to increase mileage and power. With test gear, like dynos.

The engineers on this thread seem to have a chip on their shoulder in respect to degrading fuel-improvement inventions that have been patented.

Hatton's idea isn't new -- there is a 2002 patent, for example by Patterson and another inventor, for mileage and exhaust pollutants improvement. Patent granted.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

02/23/2010 3:06 PM

The issue of HHO alone and whether it works is not at question, here. The issue is whether it is a viable way to gain mileage when the HHO GENERATION PROCESS is onboard the vehicle, and powered BY THE VEHICLE. The issue then is whether the process of generating HHO (or any other kind of gas additive/enhancement) delivers more net power than it requires to create it.

And if it did, it would be "OVER UNITY" (ie, it would create more power than it used) which is proven to be impossible.

Unless you wish to take on the DISproof of the Energy Conservation Laws.

Have at it. But sign on as a recognizable body, so we know with whom we are carrying on a rational discussion. WE don't insult people, while hiding behind pseudonyms.

And you can find my history on the boards (or that of any of the others of us who come here often) by just doing a search on my username. So I'm NOT hiding!

__________________
It does not take quantum math to develop good toilets. On the other hand ...

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

02/23/2010 7:20 PM

If you engineers on this forum bother to use Google Scholar, you'll be really surprised to learn that HHO has been found, by peer-reviewed science, to increase mileage and power.

You may be confused by the term HHO as used in the "HHO booster" scams. These onboard electrolysis units do not work as advertised, as shown by the FTC, with John Heywood as their expert witness and overseer of the dyno testing. The Lee device, better constructed than many, did nothing at all, despite its ability to produce oxyhydrogen in the amounts typical of the typical scam units.

The only tests which have shown oxyhydrogen injection to have any beneficial effect have used oxyhydrogen from an external generator. In such tests, the amount of oxyhydrogen use is many times greater than that produced by the onboard scam units.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

02/24/2010 1:24 AM

Hatton's idea isn't new -- there is a 2002 patent...

Another source of your confusion appears to be your belief that patented ideas must "work". The patent you mentioned references, as prior art, one of the many "Turbinator" style devices, which do not work as claimed.

The engineers on this thread seem to have a chip on their shoulder in respect to degrading fuel-improvement inventions that have been patented.

The disdain automotive engineers have for illogical fuel economy "improvement" devices has nothing to do with patents or patentability. It has to do with unsupported and unsupportable claims and completely implausible pseudo-science explanations for why these devices might work. If you are interested in making a contribution here, perhaps you can supply a link to a peer-reviewed article that shows that Hatton-style throttle body grooving has any beneficial effect on engine efficiency.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/10/2009 3:01 PM

I voted a GA for you Blink, good position narrative and well stated. However, maybe if we use a left handed grinder to make the groove this would work, maybe it's only a scam if one uses a right handed grinder...

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/10/2009 8:23 PM

My dear good man. How dare you make light of this serious work. By now it should be fairly well known that these groves need to be done with a right hand grinder. At least north of the equator. Now when you are south of the equator, then it will of course require the left hand rotation grinder.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/10/2009 3:54 PM

I would need dyno test sheets showing 1) the measured fuel consumption vs engine speed and load on an existing engine, then, in this order, 2) perform a complete tune up and then provide test sheets showing the measured fuel consumption vs engine speed and load, and then 3) perform the modification and show test sheets with the measured fuel consumption vs engine speed and load. Then I'd believe it, and then the big three will pay you millions and millions for your patent rights and be quiet.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/10/2009 6:42 PM

I am new to the forum, but even without reading numerous threads I cannot be convinced by testimonials. You could give me a testimonial by the Pope himself and I would still refuse to believe it until you show me hard proof. Show us the numbers. If you can provide Dyno results then do it, but even then unless you show a video of the dyno run and some kind of proof that your device was the only difference it will be hard to convince most of us.

You have a good video on your website now, upload one of a vehicle on a dyno, then you adding your device then performing a comparison dyno run. Then you will see some contributions to your research.

Drew

__________________
Question: What is going on with the American's Government? Response: Who is John Galt?

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/10/2009 8:48 PM

I have looked at the modifications done to the carb-throttle body. The modifications done should have little effect at idle. But as one were to transition off of idle, the change in airflow will be dramatic. Instead of airflow changing at a constant rate, relative to throttle blade angle change, The air flow will dramatically change as soon as one is off idle. But, as one continues to open the throttle, the airflow gained by the groove, will become less as the larger opening makes the groove less important.

As for how the car would drive, in a driving scenario where the car is at idle, then the throttle is opened slightly to drive from a stop, the engine would flow a larger amount of air because of the groove. The driver would notice that the car drives away from the stop quicker than before the groove. Of course he would while the driver opened the throttle only sufficiently to allow 100 cfm of air to flow, BUT, because the groove allows additional air to flow, the engine actually is receiving 125 cfm of air at the same throttle setting the driver gave it before the modification. So naturally the driver feels the car to have more power, the driver is actually giving the engine additional air to drive on.

Lyn, you are smarter than this. Find other ways to spend your time and money.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/11/2009 12:57 AM

Essentially every car since the mid nineties (and most since 1980) has closed loop control (and fuel map control when out of closed loop -- but modern cars are into closed loop operation within a minute or two of start-up). In closed loop, any additional air is matched by the appropriate amount of fuel. The optimal air-fuel ratio (stoichiometric -- 14.7 : 1 by weight) is held to within 1 percent all the time in closed loop operation. In a modern engine, if you add air, the appropriate amount of fuel is added automatically.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

Color me skeptical. Recall that I didn't endorse this modification, just asked for opinions.

In all fairness to Ron, I have to say that during his second visit yesterday he mentioned a shop close to here, where he had performed the mod. I looked the shop up in the book and called them. Yes, the person on the other end (who said he was the owner of the shop and the car) did know Ron and Ron had modified his car, a newer Mustang. The vehicle did show an improvement in power.

So, I'm waiting to see some real data.

I'll post any credible information I can get.

Also, in the spirit of full disclosure, Ron has offered to modify my vehicle free of charge. An offer I have yet to accept.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/11/2009 1:15 PM

The vehicle did show an improvement in power.

Precisely what was the horsepower gain, and at what rpm levels did the gains occur? What was the specific fuel consumption at each of those hp levels? What was the effect on the criteria emissions (CO, NOx and HC)? For overall power gain claims, even a DynoJet run would be adequate -- they are quick and really cheap -- but almost useless for fuel efficiency runs, because the amount of fuel used is too small to accurately and repeatably measure. In fact, just one of Ron's $250 "donations"* would be enough for a DynoJet (inertia dyno) test.

A couple drag strip runs are also about as good as Dynojet runs, for ordinary cars that don't require much driving skill (1/4 mile times of lets say 13 seconds and up). All you need is an independent driver, such as a university student or prof.

Ron said he would provide you with dyno data. Has he done that yet?

It goes without saying that the mod will make the engine produce more power at a very small throttle pedal setting, because now, at that small pedal setting the throttle is effectively further open. (If the "befor" and "after" drawings linked above are representative of Ron's mod, then at about 5 degrees throttle shaft rotation, you will have achieved a flow that would otherwise require perhaps 15 degrees rotation.) For someone without an understanding of the mechanics of cars, it would be perceived that the car is producing a lot more power at these slight throttle pedal settings. (Such a person would then report that the car seems "peppier" or more powerful. The response of the woman in the video would be the expected response.) Changing the throttle leverage (without damaging the throttle body) would give the same impression: imagine what fun it would be to deliver a car to a client with the leverage arranged to give half throttle where it used to give 1/16 throttle. Lots of tire smoke, fun crashes, etc.

Because modern cars cannot intake more air without intaking more fuel, this greater power will be accompanied by greater fuel consumption -- in near perfect proportion. The "jack rabbit" starts we are warned against will happen more frequently, because it will be more difficult to correctly modulate the throttle.

One of Ron's clients reports exactly this problem. The guy with the Jetta complains of wheel spin at starts, which, with a stock VW, is never a problem. It is also not a problem with 600 hp Corvettes. I can give my Honda Accord too much throttle starting off, and it will easily spin the wheels too, but I avoid doing so, in the interests of better tire wear, better fuel efficiency, and to avoid looking like an idiot who cannot drive properly.

I'm looking forward to seeing the independent test results. Also, I am anxious to see Ron's CFD printouts that show that the air now flows in donuts down the intake track, but did not before. It would be interesting to see how he measured the "pause" that the air takes on its way past the throttle (an area where the air speed actually increases dramatically in engines that comply with the laws of physics.)

$250 for 10 minutes with a Dremel is great pay -- $1500 per hour. Good thing too, to require than any cleaning be done by the mark client. It would be a shame to have to take a hit on that modest hourly wage.

Also, in the spirit of full disclosure, Ron has offered to modify my vehicle free of charge. An offer I have yet to accept.

That is a good offer if it includes buying you another throttle body for comparison purposes, and to restore your car to normal after the tests. With two throttle bodies, (ideally one from a junk yard with something close to the same mileage on it) then running A/B tests would be fairly easy: original/mod original/mod. Avoid any other changes between test runs. When you get close to the point of running these tests, I can make suggestions for some quick tests to run on a DynoJet to see if it makes sense to go further with real fuel flow tests.

Notice how Ron primed the woman to observe the "right" things, such as noticing how little "throttle" would now be required to drive at cruise speed. (Someone who knows nothing about cars would be very impressed to find that, at cruise, the throttle pedal setting would be noticeably less. Someone who knows nothing about cars would then think that the engine therefore runs "better" or "more efficiently".) Notice how he primed her for supplying info on perceived power (knowing, as he did, that she would be operating with much greater effective throttle settings than she had been). Clever. Slick. Does Ron have a background in politics, acting, or venture capital?

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/11/2009 3:08 PM

I keep telling you...send me your money, at leset I will use it to fund my Engineering degree. I do have my own Idea to improve fuel economy, but it is not by gimik'ing the engine. I don't know for sure if it will work but I might after next semester. I signed up for an alternative fuel automotive course. As long as it is not a course for mechanics to work on hybrid cars I will take the class. If I can figure out a way of developing my Idea without giving away ownership of it to the school I will post data I accumulate here.

The difference between my Idea and these scam artists is 1, I am not trying to sell it to unsuspecting marks and 2, I am an engineering student and thusly based my Idea upon sound physics.

Drew

__________________
Question: What is going on with the American's Government? Response: Who is John Galt?

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/12/2009 2:40 PM

OK! I have just devised an absolute foolproof way to increase the fuel mileage of any mass produced passenger vehicle that burns gasoline. Anyone willing to send me $200 (notice that my offer is less than the $250 donation) I will send you a packet that will allow you to drive 10% further on the same amount of money that you usually spend on refueling your passenger car.

For those that want specific details, please contact me through CR4. This MAY become a limited time offer at some point in the future, so act NOW.

Limited to passenger motor vehicles designed to burn gasoline only, with fuel tanks smaller than 30 US gallons.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

From someone who I have never met to speak so disparagingly about me tells me so much about your character (and any who cares to observe)...

Do you have any friends in the Phoenix area? If so, and they have the capacity to perform the tests you ask, then I will be more than happy to put my money where my mouth is.

I will willingly allow my modification to be tested in any way you like. The data must be released freely for all to see, for all my efforts are 100% transparent. I hide nothing.

In fact, I don't recall trying to sell anything here at all. So, why are you exhibiting so much animosity toward me, Blink? Have I offended you in some way by simply breathing? Or are you appointing yourself as protector against anyone who comes along who challenges the accepted "rules"?

It is my wish only to improve my little piece of the planet. For those who share this desire, I welcome you as friends and allies. Only acting together can we affect the changes necessary. Only by challenging the accepted paradigms can we develop new and more powerful ones.

Once we begin to focus on these solutions instead of creating more problems (animosity and negativity being the most pronounced) then we set ourselves on a new and more productive future.

This modification works. The proof is in the results. The results are happy customers reporting better mileage and more power.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/11/2009 6:10 PM

Hi Ron,

Please don't take my comments as a sign of animosity. My verbose, rambling writing style leads to long posts (which could be shorter and clearer, if I had more time to do a good edit). Perhaps it's the length that makes them seem overly negative.

My last post though, was pretty positive, suggesting several ways for you to win over this crowd -- all of whom seem skeptical, at best. For example, I said I was anxious to see your CFD printouts that would support what you say on the video, namely that the air "literally dances into the cylinder in the shape of a donut". That I'd like to see your CFD can only be seen as positive right? If you don't have the CFD, then photographs of tests with smoke or other visual flow revealers would be good too. I'm sure you have this kind of data, because otherwise you wouldn't be making the claim, right? I'm sure you're not just making this stuff up.

Another generously offered piece of advice: you should make the logical connection between dancing air and fuel efficiency, In other words show the flaw with the original design and show how that flaw is in every ICE, no matter how big or small and no matter from which manufacturer. For me (and I've done a lot of study along these lines) dancing is not a requirement for better fuel efficiency. If by dancing, you mean turbulence, then you should strike the word "literally." Turbulence around an almost-closed throttle plate is already abundant, so your spiel would benefit from something that makes sense. If you described the real science involved, then this would not come across so much as "baffle 'em with bullshit." Again, this is offered as constructive criticism, not a sign of animosity. CFD or photos could help clear this up right away.

I've built dynos and run dynos, so I freely offered my advice along those lines as well. For documenting fuel economy claims, a dyno on which you can set a constant load is essential. But for quick hp and torque curve runs, the DynoJet inertia dynos work pretty well, and are more prevalent and often cheaper to run. This is good sound advice also. I might have also suggested that you do a real EPA cycle, as the car companies are required to do, but those can get expensive. This seems like good sound advice aimed at saving you money.

I also elucidated some points that may have confused your customers, or perhaps you. I'm sure you agree that you don't want to confuse your customers. Bob c's post (#17, as a guest) succinctly showed how a customer could be confused into seeing a performance improvement where no real improvement exists, because your modification would provide more airflow at very small throttle pedal settings than would normally be the case. This is an important point, because it could make your customers think that the engine is running "better" in some way, but you've only caused the airflow to change more quickly with throttle pedal movement. In the interests of keeping customers happy, you will want to make this clear to them. Again, good well-intentioned advice, not animosity.

Certainly one of your testimonials specifically mentions inadvertent wheel spin, which does not occur in a car with normal throttle opening profile, no matter how powerful. So clearly, that is part of the modification you will want to look at. This, too is good advice -- aimed, again, at customer satisfaction.

Perhaps the best, (and best-intentioned) advice, was my advice to immediately get this in the hands of the car manufacturers, meaning that you will have to supply them with the dyno data you promised to provide to LynLynch. Granted, $250 for ten minutes work is incredibly good pay, but imagine what you could make with licenses with all the car manufacturers. I will be the first to cheer when you achieve that goal.

Remember, whether or not I believe that your device improves engine efficiency (in terms of BSFC) carries little or no weight. Testimonials, as everyone has said here, carry no weight, because virtually every single fuel efficiency scam has been accompanied by testimonials. Happy customers carry no weight here. All that carries weight here is objective, verifiable, data. I offered that advice before, and that advice certainly cannot be viewed as animosity. Put together objective verifiable data, and you can make millions.

So, why are you exhibiting so much animosity toward me, Blink?

I gather you've misunderstood. As I said above, all the advice I've offered has been to help you get a solid, verifiable product on the market, and to help with perception issue -- certainly you've noticed that your idea has not been enthusiastically received by anyone here, and I am offering a way out of that predicament. HHO scams have been similarly received, and somehow, even after all these years, no one has come up with any good data. In the same time, (since CR4 inception) there have been thousands of well-documented studies done regarding combustion science in automobiles, and significant improvements continue to be made. I want to see you as separate from the scammers, and I'm sure we both agree that we want to see more scammers put in jail.

I think I can find someone who may be interested in testing your device in Arizona.

Is there some reason so many people promoting fuel efficiency gadgets use the phrase "End of story" so much?

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

I didn't spend a lot of time on the phone with the garage owner. I didn't press him for details, either. That's up to Ron to supply the data. I can go visit the garage owner to verify the data later, if this goes that far.

"Ron said he would provide you with dyno data. Has he done that yet?" No, not yet.

My only interest in the modification would be to increase fuel mileage, not performance. I'm still skeptical due to the lack of quantifiable data.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/12/2009 4:08 PM

I did drop copies of the dyno sheets on two vehicles, each with a pre- and a post-mod run. In both cases, the vehicles and the dynos were owned by the person who recorded the results. Each shows a marked increase in HP and and Torque-AT OPEN THROTTLE POSITIONS and at all stages of the run.

If you guys want to see them, you should ask Lyn. I really can't spend a great deal of time discussing. I'm in to working.

Find me someone in Phoenix with a Ford, preferably a 1996-2004 F-150 series and we'll do any tests you like-so long as you agree to accept the results of the tests that you arrange.

Or is that too risky?

After all, what if I am not a liar and a thief as some would have you believe?

What if this actually DOES do what I say it does?

What will you guys do for me? Will you promote it? Will you send me money? Will you tell your friends? Will you write CARB on my behalf?

I really don't care about all that (too much!). What I AM interested in is finding people who are truly interested in seeing this technology properly applied in their neck of the woods.

So if ANY of you have a Ford that fits the description above, I make this offer:

1) Get dyno runs on your vehicle at a shop of your choice and share a copy with me along with the name, address and number of the shop and the name of the tech who will be running the tests.

2) Clean and send me your throttle body and I will modify it and send it back.

3) Do a second set of Dynos-again at the same shop by the same person at a time of your choosing. Send me those results.

4) If your vehicle does NOT show a power gain, I'll reimburse you for the dynos and undo the mod at no charge to you (even the shipping!)

5) If your vehicle DOES show the gains, then you pay me double what you invested in the dyno runs and then reimburse me for the shipping.

If you are a man of honor (as I am proud to be) then we will both have accurate data after. Worst case scenario is you've invested some of your time and proven me to be a liar and a cheat.

But what if... What will you have gained then?

For me, I hope to gain a friend. I will have also done what so few others will: Stand behind my word, strong and certain. What more can be asked of any man?

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/13/2009 2:19 AM

Seriously, what is the point of all this bantering back and fourth at this point of the thread regarding proof. Blink, enough! (your fingers are going to fall off) As usual you've provided plenty of good solid valid suggestions. GadgetmanGlobal, you should have long done your own dyno testing by now, long since the video. More than one and on different vehicles. You should have a few by now and increasing your tract record of proof. Christ, providing legitimate validation is common sense at this point. Who wouldn't test their ideas from any practical simplistic scientific approach who's serious about their outcome? These type of threads drive me nuts. Just do some testing already.

Again Ron/GadgetmanGlobal is the only one who is to prove anything and should be more than happy to provide some basics in testing. There are dynos all over Phoenix, Scottsdale etc. If your idea is valid you wouldn't continue to get others to prove what you should have done months ago. Providing validation through accredited scientific methods or otherwise is absolutely ESSENTIAL in todays pseudoscience flooded world.

You've been provided with fantastic ideas in securing proof. Even if one were a novice inventor it would be considered ridiculous to not take advantage of people here who are willing to provide knowledge from their many years of experience. This isn't negativity, this is pointing out the obvious! Again, get to work and provide the essentials to provide validation. Gees, is it really that difficult? Get on with it already.

__________________
...the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance. -- Cicero , 55 BC

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/13/2009 2:32 PM

Blink, enough! (your fingers are going to fall off)

Well put!

One reason I post in threads like these, where the claims are well beyond plausible to anyone conversant in the subject matter (aside from the fact that I have verbal dia-rhea, and like to read my own writing), is to see how predictable the responses from the "inventors" who are "thinking outside the box", and "only doing this for the good of the country" can be. In every case, they avoid the obvious tests like the plague. You can get a BSFC chart for a $500 lawn mower engine. So why not here, where, if the inventor were to be believed, he's got a trillion dollar idea? There is a remarkable similarity in the posts by HHO promoters, Searl effect generator promoters, magnet motor promoters, magic spark plug promoters, etc. etc. It borders on fun to see what they come up with, although it is too often the same old stuff. Thus, my now infrequent posts on HHO and the like, and thus, my withdrawal from this thread until something meaningful shows up.

But I have also seen the damage that scams can do to ordinary people, especially in the invention promotion world. Davison was fined many millions by the FTC for good reason -- but my guess is that they will keep on going strong, because they already had a judgment against them from years ago, requiring them to put their success rate on their website. While they lead you to believe that they make income from royalties, royalties are really .001% (.00001 x total) of their income. All the rest comes directly from the inventors who they claim to be "helping." Unsophisticated and trusting inventors have lost many, many millions to companies like Davison.

People have lost millions to Dennis Lee, the infamous HHO and perpetual motion machine promoter (and convicted fraud). Sadly, many people are unable to evaluate these scams. So when unbelievable claims show up here, I try to at least separate fact from fiction, and offer the inventor the means for supporting his or her claim.

At a gathering of entrepreneurs and VC types recently, an entrepreneur told me about a Harvard-educated accountant who invested in an HHO scam business. Smart guy, just not smart re auto technology, and so thought the business was legitimate. Slick HHO promoter. The accountant lost over a million dollars in less than a year. That's a million dollars that might otherwise have helped to start a business that would find a cure for cancer, etc.

I generally agree that, if we are not part of the solution, we are part of the problem. Therefore, I find it hard to turn a blind eye to this stuff, particularly because it relates to my own interests in improving vehicle efficiency. The web gives unprecedented access of scammers to marks, so there needs to be some balance. If only the FTC had time and funds prosecute more of the scams.

I'd love to be able to say: "Remember SoAndSo, his idea proved to be a good one -- it really did show that the laws of physics are outdated." So far, I have not seen such an idea at CR4. Maybe Ron's will be the first -- where it appears completely outlandish at first glance, but is shown to be right on the money when further data is presented.

It will be interesting to see those BSFC charts. The dyno charts certainly don't support his contentions, but perhaps the BFSC charts will.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/11/2009 2:47 AM

You should by some KrisDelTM special helical vortex air.
The hand picked molecules are all carefull spin matched to ensure higher velocities at the inlet manifold and better scouring of my anus the combustion chamber.
Pleas send $500 to me direct (NOT to KrisDel as that git Kris nicks all the pies and good stuff wot gets delivered...he needs a damn good spanking from ER...
Hmmm come to think of it so do I)

Oooh gotta go toast is ready.

Del

__________________
health warning: These posts may contain traces of nut.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/11/2009 4:01 AM

Please get your system independently tested and then let the independent tester post the results here. Any damned fool can make a youtube video and pass it off as fact; just look as this video for proof. Only when credible independent testers all verify your claims as true do they become credible.

And please don't expect anyone to believe in testimonials; anyone can post them, including the claimant himself. In fact, a couple of years ago, one of our members actually resorted to trolling, posing as a "NASA rocket scientist" named Blue to support his own HHO scam. That was until someone else humiliated him publicly by pointing out that no NASA rocket scientist will ever support the HHO bullshit because it violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. Of course, he still continued to promote his scam until the site administrators banned the topic permanently, but at least in put an end to "Blue".

So in summary, if you want to convince everyone here, please send a few cars for dynamometer testing both before and after modification, and let the tester post his results here. That would be the best way to go about it.

__________________
If only you knew the power of the Dark Side of the Force

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/11/2009 9:39 AM

I wouldnt say that it was any damn fool who created that video, it is actually very well done. Which is why I am still skeptical even if shown video. Any theory is still just a theory until credible independent studies have confirmed the results.

Drew

__________________
Question: What is going on with the American's Government? Response: Who is John Galt?

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/11/2009 10:59 AM

Yeah, I shouldn't have used that video as an example of what any damned fool can post on youtube because it is extremely well done. My point in showing it rather was to show how realistic something even so blatantly fake as that video can be in the hands of a highly skilled animator.

A much better example of something that any damned fool can post on youtube is this one.

__________________
If only you knew the power of the Dark Side of the Force

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/13/2009 7:57 AM

Hello Gang,

Ron dropped this by yesterday. Unfortunately, it appears to be a copy of a copy and I can't make out enough detail to be conclusive. It does mesh with what the garage owner said. He mentioned a 10 HP increase when I spoke to him on the phone.

Please remember, I'm just the conduit here. I do not support any of these claims because I have no independent knowledge of the validity of any of the data.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/13/2009 11:20 AM

I was under the impression that HP and torque would always be the same at 5225, or 5250 RPM. On the charts shown, the two figures seem to coincide at about 4000 RPM. I am puzzled by this alone. The max engine speed shown in the chart is 6500 RPM. That is above the engine speed that would be turned by a Ford 6 cylinder engine that was desired for testing. The power in both forms is higher than that engine would produce unless it was modified by someone.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/13/2009 12:37 PM

Hi Bob,

Actually, the torque and hp scales are different, which makes the printout more confusing than it would otherwise be. If you look at roughly 5252 rpm, torque in lb-ft) and hp are the same, at roughly 280 in either case. With a Dynojet, you'd need several independent and careful backup runs to prove that there is any meaningful difference between the runs. And of course, you would need fuel flow equipment to be able to say anything remotely meaningful about Ron's claims of unbelievably improved fuel efficiency.

I think this run was perhaps with a Mustang V8. Actual hp figures are more or less meaningless, (in comparison to factory numbers) because the hp is measured at the rear wheel instead of at the flywheel, and the flywheel through rear wheel losses are calculated, using fudge factors which may or may not be correct for a particular car. But the Dynojet dynos are handy for quick relative hp runs (but almost uselss for fuel efficiency runs) and for that usage, are pretty repeatable, for showing, e.g., a 10% difference in hp after a modification. However, they are extremely susceptible to operator error, because they are inertia-based*, so if the operator is a little slow in applying the throttle one time the whole plot suffers. You cannot hold a load and speed (or run an EPA driving cycle), like you can with the dynos the EPA and most states use for fuel efficiency and emissions measurement.

Ron is a fuel researcher with 25 years experience, he claims. Odd he doesn't seem to know any of this stuff. Perhaps his time spent promoting HHO has left him confused.

All we can conclude from these plots is that they do not support Ron's claims at all.

*you are, in effect, just spinning up a large flywheel, with torque being calculated (incrementally) from the time required to spin it up. Torque is not measured directly. The best real-world equivalent is running a 1/4 mile. With a Dynojet, if you back off on the throttle or apply the throttle differently the apparent hp changes, just as a 13.2 second 1/4 mile suggests a different hp than a 13.3 second run -- whereas the difference can be entirely driver variation.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

If we were to accept these Dynojet runs as accurate, the increase in power was 10/273, or 3.66%. The air fuel ratios in both runs are close enough (until the obvious problem occurs) that we can say that there is no meaningful difference, and therefore no meaningful difference in fuel efficiency. If we take Ron's claim to be that a 162.5% increase in fuel efficiency is the average to be expected, (half way between the absolute minimum 25% and the absolute maximum 300%), then the increase shown here is about 1/50th of his claims.

If anyone were to believe that there were a legitimate, repeatable 3.6% increase in power, then there would be cause to run a real series of runs with fuel flow measurement equipment, to see if anything is actually happening. (Without having to do an actual EPA drive cycle, one can get close enough to real world fuel consumption by setting the dyno load to simulate a 2.5% grade at 45 mph. This is easy and quick to do with any dyno that can apply a steady state load.)

All we can reasonably conclude is that the power increase shown (if it is believed) completely and conclusively proves that Ron's claim is incorrect by more than an order of magnitude.

Given that Ron has conclusively shown that his claims are incorrect, then the onus is on him to provide real, verifiable data to show that this test was an anomaly and that his claims are justified. Perhaps someone who believes that there is any merit to his claims can assist him in setting up tests with a university with a good combustion program.

What we would need to see (to suggest that there is any merit to his claims) is a BSFC chart. Here is a thread that provides links to various BSFC charts. The best are maps that show variation of BSFC with load. Simpler ones show BSFC vs engine speed, with the throttle wide open (these typically look like the torque curve inverted). Even the latter would be a good start.

So far, nothing of interest here. But I'll check back with this thread periodically. When Ron presents real, independent BSFC data that shows a meaningful difference as a result of the modification, then this thread may become interesting. Until then, it is meaningless: just another in the long line of over-unity, HHO, magic spark plug, perpetual motion threads in which the promoter makes unsubstantiated claims and purports to be "challenging the accepted paradigms."

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/14/2009 1:05 AM

Blink, there are so many holes in your presentation that anyone with a knowledge of the basics of the function of an ECU in regards to fuel delivery would treat it as inane. First-level diagnostic technicians know the fuel trims are geared to deliver fuel based on the content of the exhaust.

(But surely, with your experience and education, you already knew that. Or do you just like presenting arguments without foundation to see how many buy it? Perhaps you're a plant to incite and encourage discontent-masterful! Not very helpful, but masterful!)

With better combustion comes more complete consumption of the oxygen. Lower levels of oxygen result in the computer reducing the amount of fuel delivered to reach the desired number as dictated by the long term fuel trims.

Some ECUs have an operating range for the pulse width. The ECU will modulate the fuel to keep the O2 readings at the appropriate ratio. The air-fuel ratio (displayed) is worthless to determine fuel economy. The only acceptable way to determine mileage gains is to drive the vehicle.

I will give it to you, Blink. You are very smooth! But (alas and alack) you carry an argument based on half-truths and incomplete data sets.

The phone number is clear on the copy that is posted above (thank you for that, Lyn!) and you can call Mr. Diamond if you wish. He is a well-respected shop owner here and was one of my first 20 modifications.

it is his dyno, his mustang, and his figures. If you want to question them, then you should question him rather than slander me by not so subtle innuenda. I approached him early on in an attempt to discover if my theories were correct. He assured me they were. He may even still have a copy of the dyno reports on his hard drive. (there were at least six runs, all performed by him and his partner, Joseph (I believe).

To me, the best proof does not come from a laboratory, but from actual practice. (since when do the EPA estimated mileage values on new cars count for anything?) I confess that I am out of my league here. I am just a tinkerer who has stumbled onto something that I am trying to get serious people to take a serious look at.

To get the tests you require for your proof is absolutely desirable by me. If you would care to offer me where to go to get the proof-SPECIFICALLY, please!-then I will contact them with a quickness!

As to the comment about not having the $250, (the price is actually $350 to $500) I believe I offered to do the mod at no charge. Only if its a success do I ask for payment. Does this not tell you that I am something other than what most replies have asserted about me and my character? You risk only your time. I, my integrity

I will keep this offer open only for 7 days, so if you want to prove me either right or wrong, the 21st is the last day to act. I hope someone here does, as they will be delighted and I will have accomplished something.

I am working diligently to PROVE what this does, and I had hoped for some assistance. I had hoped for more than advice, I had hoped that from these rooms I could find someone that might say to themselves (no matter the number of past snake-oil salesmen) there's a possibility there's something here worth a deeper and more professional look.

If such a person reads this, if any one of you are willing to set aside your natural skepticism long enough to offer a hand in this way, I welcome it.

Otherwise, I will continue my quest as I have since June of this year: by performing the modification time and again and continuing to gather data on the results as reported by my customers until-by sheer weight of numbers-I succeed in gaining acceptance in the mainstream for this simple and effective modification.

Until that door opens by that one member on this forum, then I will absent myself, as I tire of the banter as well. I am worthy of respect if for no other reason than being a guest in your house. I simply responded to Lyn's post, I did not invade here and attempt to conquer your ground.

Again, for any of you in the Phoenix area with a vehicle as mentioned above, I welcome the opportunity to perform the modification for you at my expense. Hopefully, Lyn will consider this modification for his truck. There is no substitute for this experience.

Until then, I thank you all for allowing me the opportunity to present a portion of my case, to hear your arguments and for taking the time follow the thread.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/17/2009 5:39 PM

Hi Gadget,

Just wanted to check back to see if you have anything new that would support your contention of average gains of around 162%.

I notice that your understanding of fuel control is a bit out of the mainstream, and so I won't comment on it, other than to say that your first paragraph is roughly correct, with the exception of the first sentence (in its entirety) and much of the second. The fuel trims are really the settings of last resort, based on history. Closed loop fuel control relies only on the O2 sensor readings for second-by-second fuel control, keeping the mixture at effectively stoichiometric all the time. (In dyno tests in which the throttle is not wide open -- in other words where the system remains in closed loop, the air fuel ratio line is perfectly flat.) (Strictly speaking, the ratio constantly fluctuates in increments so small that they do not show up on a Dynojet plot.) (On the submitted Dynojet plots you can see this: before the throttle goes to full, the ratio is stoichiometric.) The very small changes from stoichiometric obviously have nothing to do with the 162% claimed gain in fuel efficiency (which would take an ordinary gasoline engine to beyond the efficiency of the world's most efficient diesel.)

I'd suggest the Bosch Automotive Handbook as a good source on the basics of combustion control. Perhaps before you present any dyno data that shows that your mod works as claimed, you can read the relevant sections, and then we'd have a common language.

When you promote HHO devices with your Land Rover you claim a 40-some percent improvement in fuel efficiency. Seems odd that you are not using your two "improvements" together. Did the FTC's shutting down Dennis Lee's HHO sales have anything to do with this? John Heywood is among the best combustion engineers in the world, and says HHO does nothing in his testimony, just as the science would predict, and just as the tests showed. Did you, too, find HHO to be useless? Or do you think Heywood is all wet, the science is wrong, and the tests are wrong?

To me, the best proof does not come from a laboratory, but from actual
practice. (since when do the EPA estimated mileage values on new cars
count for anything?)

The EPA values mean a great deal, and if you compare the EPA number with the actual practice numbers (also reported on the EPA site) there is very good correspondence. A dyno is the only reasonable way of controlling variables, and is the reason the the EPA uses dyno testing rather than driving on roads. Dyno testing is also (because of the statistics involved) far faster that accumulating the miles required to gain a statistically valid sample: the variation from driving sample to sample means that a huge number of samples must be taken. You can see this also on the EPA site, where, if the sample size is large, the EPA and real world numbers converge.

Having designed and run dynos, I can say that there is often a huge gap between what a hot rodder thinks he has achieved, and what he has really achieved. Successful hot rodders will tell you that the dyno does not lie. The same is true for fuel efficiency, and when BSFC is quoted, the figures are always obtained by dyno tests.

If you want to bamboozle people, avoid dynos. If you want to show that your mod works, use a dyno with real fuel-flow equipment -- something you could and should have done months ago. You don't come across as the profoundly ill-informed person who cannot find a good dyno. You don't need our help, you need the will to do it right.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

Sometime over the weekend, Ron sent me a PM to say that he was no longer going to participate in this thread. Or, was it the forum in general? Can't remember.

Anyway, it's time to let this one die.

I do not believe I will avail myself of Ron's offer to modify my pickup. I'll admit that 4% is 4%, (the amount of increase the Gearhead Garage guy said he got) but for me the $ savings isn't significant. Maybe $100.00US a year. I also believe that if this process were effective, the car makers would be doing it.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/17/2009 11:55 PM

I'll admit that 4% is 4%, (the amount of increase the Gearhead Garage
guy said he got) but for me the $ savings isn't significant

And in fact the expectation would be a 4% increase in fuel consumption (decrease in MPG) if you used the 4% increase in power, and perhaps a .5% increase in consumption if you did not change your driving at all (because the engine would be operating at a slightly smaller percentage of its efficiency peak output). There is nothing to indicate that BFSC (the fuel consumed per hp hour) changed, and making any inference that it has would be unwarranted. In general, engine modifications that increase power decrease fuel efficiency (thus the Prius's measly hp for its engine size).

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/27/2009 8:18 AM

I wanted to step back in and give you, Blink, a great big hug!

As a direct result of your twisting of my words into outright lies, by the sheer absence of your scientific protocol, and by the sheer volume of errors in your math, you brought so much attention to The Gadgetman Groove that I have just been approached by ASU (I won't tell you which part-YET).

It seems they would like the opportunity to validate my findings. Not only that, but I have found myself welcomed by the serious PHD-level researchers!

What level of education have you been granted? Papers? Letters after your name? I would like to cite them in my promotional material.

Once again, Thank you, Blink!

You have proven yourself quite valuable to the acceptance of this new technology. Without your commentary, they would not have become aware of my work. Not only that, but I have received three letters from people apologizing for your conduct, and have performed the modification for a woman with a 99 Jetta whose initial report is double her mileage (NOT the BS 162% you attributed to me. But keep on lying! It works for me!).

Not only that, but I received one call from a professor in Puerto Vallarta who has invited me to visit him, and stay at his home.

God is good to me!

Have a nice day!

Oh, yeah... One more thing. If you have anything nice to say, FORGET IT! You are MUCH more effective as a tool for growth of my company like you are!

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/27/2009 9:33 AM

Please continue to provide us with records of your progress. We all look forward to any published results you achieve. Please provide us links to any scientific publications that cite your work. As any scientist in the face of adversity knows proof is in the publications.

Drew

__________________
Question: What is going on with the American's Government? Response: Who is John Galt?

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/27/2009 12:08 PM

Thank you, Drew.

I recognize the value of scientific data, as well as the scientific process and am working diligently to accommodate this need before substantiation can occur.

I will at this point renew my offer to anyone within driving distance of Mesa Arizona who would like to help in the process to contact me. It is all part of the data gathering sequence, and the information can only help in the cause.'

"The Cause" being to do something good for the planet.

Thank you, Drew. For standing firm on your principles and not being drawn away from them by angry words spoken in haste.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/27/2009 10:54 PM

I assume nothing of the kind, Drew, as you have no data upon which to base an intelligent decision of any kind. All you have now is my word and my conduct.

Hopefully, you have enough there to consider that I (at the very least) believe in what I am presenting. That I am in an active quest to obtain relevant and acceptable data is all I ask you to support with your native scientific demeanor.

With this in mind, I will pursue any reasonable suggestions made that will help. If you are aware of any open-minded experimenters that are also engineers, I welcome opening a dialog.

It is only through a concerted effort that we can achieve the end goal: a better planet for all.

My groove works. I only ask the opportunity to prove it, and in that you have been supportive and I thank you.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

11/28/2009 1:34 AM

Hi Ron,

Thanks for the hug!

It is hard to imagine that my posts in this thread would have any effect at all in helping or hindering your business. I'd like to think that if you acted upon my suggestions (such as teaming up with a university and getting real dyno figures for fuel consumption and getting your results published in a peer-reviewed journal) that then there could be some positive effect upon your business. I am pretty sure I do not have anything close to the influence you seem to be implying I have.

It is nearly impossible to imagine that anyone would write you to apologize for anything I have written here: I have no agents authorized to make apologies for me. Further, what apology would be due? I have simply stated my opinion that your grooving of the throttle body would have no beneficial effect on fuel efficiency, and stated the reasons for my opinion. Lynlynch asked for opinions, and I offered mine. I suggested that there would be an apparent boost in power just off idle (for the reason Bob C detailed in his post #15) and that there should be no expectation of any improvement in fuel efficiency, because even if the groove improved airflow at mid-throttle, increased airflow translates directly into increased fuel flow, per the closed loop dynamics shared by essentially every modern gasoline-engined car.

No one has challenged that contention, and that contention is well-supported by the literature. The Bosch Automotive Handbook, 5th edition, says this: "For the treatment of exhaust gas by a three-way catalytic converter, it is absolutely essential to adhere exactly to lambda = 1 with the engine at normal operating temperature. In order to do so, the air mass drawn in must be precisely determined and an exactly metered fuel mass added to it."

Your claim of 25 to 200 or 300 percent is in your video -- it is not a claim that I made up or twisted in any way: the math I used is shown in my post. Given no other data to work with, 162.5% is a reasonable average for comparison purposes: you can pick another number if you'd like, but your 200% is even further from the 3.66% power gain shown in the dyno charts -- and the 3.66% power gain would be expected to increase fuel consumption by 3.66%, if there is no other data to the contrary -- and you have supplied no other data.

I hope you work soon with ASU, you can get real data, namely BSFC curves that can be reproduced and validated by an independent test facility.

You claim that I have twisted your words into outright lies, and I have not done that. You claim that there is a "sheer volume of errors" in my math, but have not pointed even one out... nor has anyone else: all the math is right there in the posts. You have written: "(NOT the BS 162% you attributed to me. But keep on lying!)" This is not a lie, and again, others would be likely to point out its being a lie if it were. We have moderators here, to whom I am reporting your post, and they can certainly determine the nature and extent of any lies.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

12/06/2009 10:44 AM

For those of you wishing to witness a validation of this technology and are available for a visit to Chandler, Arizona, I will be performing the modification for a shop owner on a 2004 F-150 at a Dyno facility. The location is near the 10 and Chandler Blvd, and will take place on Tuesday December the 8th at about 10 am.

There, we will get a full Dyno report both pre- and post-modification. Witnesses will be present who have expressed an interest and are worthy of note (at least in this community).

If you would like to come, or want to recommend anyone to see the thing either fail or succeed, then e-mail me and I will give you the address. This process is necessary as there will already be 7 people as witnesses, and there is room for only about 5 more without crowding the facility.

Feel free to e-mail me to see if there are any slots left. Lyn has one of them now.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

12/06/2009 11:14 AM

Ron,

This topic is beyond my scope of interest/knowledge, but I sense you are fighting a corner here. Top kudos to you for nailing your colours to the mast (hope the idiom carries - basically, Britspeak, it means you're up for saying "Come see, I'm ready to show you what I have"). The technicalities are a bit beyond me, but I sincerely hope one of our our American chums will visit to see the demonstration. I much admire a man who has the balls to go against the flow. When the demo is done, we can all look forward to results published here. My motto (for want of a better word) is, "never let the majority hold you back" The first guy/gal; who discovered/invented the wheel was probably killed by fellow cave-people as some sort of heretic. You go for it Ron !

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

I would like to know one person here who has access to the test equipment they are demanding I use to provide my results. Just one would be enough, no matter what part of the world they are in.

This technology is without a doubt the most amazing thing I have ever witnessed. It is a true pity you all hide your real names behind pseudonyms. I should very much like to meet you, and show you how much your input has meant to me.

Are there any among you who have the equipment available to do the tests you request? If so, please let me know. No matter where in the world you are, I will find a way to come to you, that you be able to get the data you require.

If you have not got the equipment yourself, then I respectfully ask you to keep your opinion to yourself, for you are not helping.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

12/06/2009 11:19 AM

video it and make sure to show fuel consumption just as requested in this thread.

Blink said it well:

If you want to bamboozle people, avoid dynos. If you want to show that
your mod works, use a dyno with real fuel-flow equipment -- something
you could and should have done months ago. You don't come across as the
profoundly ill-informed person who cannot find a good dyno. You don't
need our help, you need the will to do it right.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

12/06/2009 3:04 PM

I will address only one aspect of this comment, the quote of Blinks.

He said avoid Dynos. I presented dyno reports. Lyn only posted one of the two (his choice, not mine). Now I come with an invitation to a dyno and there is a further demand for equipment that is not commonly available.

You are all a profound disappointment to me. You even reject what data I can provide, without any help at finding what I need.

Come on, there should be at least ONE of you guys out there that are willing to be proven wrong.

Are you satisfied that everything that can be learned has been learned, and that all that can be discovered, has been found? Never again will anything new be discovered in a back yard, a workshop or garage.

How comforting...

Thank you again Kris. You, as well as I, have stood against the tide. It would be an honor-I mean, an "honour" to meet you, sir.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

12/06/2009 7:22 PM

He said avoid dynos only if you want to bamboozle.

Dont blame us for describing to you the tools you need to prove your device. A ordinary dyno run will only show power. If you increase power but at the cost of fuel consumption you do not have a net gain. I want your device to work as much as you do, but you have to be able to prove it works by showing power and fuel consumption. Anything else is not a full proof.

Drew

(I don't hide behind a pseudoname to hide from you. This is an open forum and I am protecting my cyber-identity)

__________________
Question: What is going on with the American's Government? Response: Who is John Galt?

This is all very simple, and need not be stressful. You don't even need to run a full FTP cycle. Just explain that you want a quick run to see if you are around 150% improvement or so -- i.e., something in the range you quoted -- I don't think it is necessary to demonstrate the 300% improvement you quoted. It is harder to demonstrate something like a 4% gain, reliably, because the calibration has to be carefully checked, tire pressure carefully checked, all temperatures logged, etc. But if you are looking (at least at first) for a huge increase, then shorter, quicker runs can be done.

When you offered your dyno runs as evidence that your mod delivered on your claim of 25%-300% improvement, but then showed only a possible 3.6% improvement in power (which suggests a 3.6% decrease in fuel efficiency -- increased, not reduced, fuel consumption) it occurred to me that your math may be different than mine. When I say a 10% improvement, that means the improved value is 110% of the original. Likewise, a 150% improvement means that the improved value is 250% of the original. Thus, going from 18 mpg (at some test condition) to 72 mpg (at the same test condition) in a Ford pickup would be a 300% improvement.

The precise MPG (using the EPA test cycles) figure is not as important right now as a comparative figure at a reasonable cruise speed and load. Although $250 for 10 minutes work with a Dremel tool can make you rich quick, I understand that you don't want to spend money needlessly, because you may want to spend some money to grow your HHO business -- a lot of people swear that stuff works (despite there having been no demonstration that it does, and carefully controlled tests by John Heywood, from MIT's Sloan Automotive Lab, showing that it has no effect at all.)

So if you do a couple runs without your mod at a cruise hp level (30hp* would be OK for an F150) and then swap in the modified throttle body and do a couple more runs (at exactly the same output) you will be able to see the effects without doing a whole FTP sequence. The EPA runs are done with cold soaks, etc., etc., which is not necessary for your immediate purposes. The EPA test take more than a day, and the sequences are relatively long and complicated, and that drives the costs up.

BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) is the measure you are really looking for. Given this, you can predict the fuel efficiency of any vehicle, via spreadsheet modeling (knowing Cd, rolling resistance, transmission losses, vehicle weight, and the speed profile of the test cycle). At rpm and loads near the torque peak, most average American gasoline automotive engines are very close in BSFC, and as a result a 300 hp engine consumes about twice as much fuel as a 150 hp engine, when each is running at its torque peak. At lower power levels BSFC falls off, so that a smaller more highly-loaded (relative to max) engine consumes less fuel than a large less highly-loaded (relative to max) engine.

But for the time being, you want only fuel consumption at 30 hp before and after the mod. If you have more money to spend, you could get consumption at several or many outputs, or even through a real FTP cycle. (Certainly, if you are showing a large gain at 30 hp, then it might make sense to go ahead with full runs, while you have everything there, even if you have to run up your credit card.)

You definitely don't want to waste time with a DynoJet run, because that tells you absolutely nothing at all about what you are trying to sell -- namely fuel efficiency. Because BSFC tends to be fairly consistent within a range of 20 hp or so near the engine peak power, then an increase in peak power of 10% means an increase on fuel consumption of 10% at peak power. (This fact is what allows small airplane pilots to compute fuel consumption very closely based on cruise power settings of, for example, 55%, 65% and 75% of maximum power -- the fuel consumption is in near perfect proportion to power produced).

Also don't waste your time and money with full throttle (or near full throttle) runs, because these put the engine outside of closed loop conditions, and mixture control is less precise. Full throttle is not required on EPA drive cycle runs. You want your first runs to reflect real driving conditions, and you want a condition that can be replicated easily. Then if you end up in a suit like Dennis Lee did, you can show that your mod improves fuel efficiency by X % in a Ford F150 at constant 30 hp -- and that condition can be duplicated in another lab, for verification.

If you need help with getting the sort of run required to keep us cheering for you at CR4, let me know, and I can give ATL a call. I have a few hundred hours of time running dynos, so I have a good sense for what can be done quickly and inexpensively to get meaningful data. (They probably do too -- although some of these places are used to clients with deep pockets.)

You are all a profound disappointment to me. You even reject what data I can provide, without any help at finding what I need.

We did not reject the data you provided at all. It showed a likely power increase of 3.6% at peak power, and without any evidence to the contrary would also show an increase in fuel flow of the same percentage at peak power. It gives no indication at all of actual fuel flow.

This ATL place is right in Mesa. Why can I find it from the other side of the country but you, a self-proclaimed fuel researcher, cannot find it in your own neighborhood? We are willing to help all we can, but expect a little effort at your end as well.

Other data you apparently already have, but have not provided, (and which would help support your case) is the flow simulations you did regarding the dancing air waves and donut configuration of airflow, contrasted with conventional airflow. A rationale for how this airflow configuration influences combustion would be helpful, as well. Once you have dyno data showing 150% fuel efficiency improvement, then the airflow simulation data will be of little use -- but I'd first asked for this quite a while ago, when it would haved helped us remain more continuously positive.

Come on, there should be at least ONE of you guys out there that are willing to be proven wrong.

I can't speak for the others, by I'd love to be proven wrong. (In fact, in one of my favorite discussions here at CR4, one member proved my understanding of E=MC2 to be quite wrong, and I thanked him for so doing. I would love to be proven wrong about the EESTOR super-duper capacitor too, but I am not holding my breath.) I could use your mod on my prototype high-efficiency vehicle, and would pay $1000 per vehicle sold for incorporating your geometry into its throttle body, if doing so would increase efficiency by 50%. You wouldn't even need to do the mod -- the throttle body would come off the production line with the correct shape. You'd get the royalty without having to do the production.

Are you satisfied that everything that can be learned has
been learned, and that all that can be discovered, has been found?
Never again will anything new be discovered in a back yard, a workshop
or garage.

I can't speak for everyone here, but many (almost all probably) of us would say that there is far, far more to be learned than has been learned. I happen to be a garage shop guy myself. However, while I accept the uncertainty principles of quantum mechanics, I also am reasonably sure that when I drop a ball it will go down (not up) every time: most of the laws of physics and thermodynamics are proven and re-proven every day. A 300% improvement in engine efficiency suggests efficiency levels that are not only thermodynamically implausible in a heat engine, but also very near over-unity levels. Being a garage guy does not mean you need to believe in magic.

As an aside: I sense a very strange tone in some of your messages. It's as if you think we are all being negative in some way. Our suggestions to get real dyno results with real fuel flow data is very positive, and also the standard in the industry. It is the only way that you will be taken seriously by the auto companies, from whom you can make millions. Real data will put you in the enviable position of being essentially the only fuel efficiency improvement device that can produce 25% or greater gains in efficiency that has been tested and shown to actually do so with legitimate test equipment. (There is nothing else on the market that does this -- as you mention in your video, the tornado turbulators etc do nothing at all and have been demonstrated to do nothing by the EPA.) If your mod works as claimed, then it seems to me to be a no-brainer that we are offering very positive advice that can be a strong step in making you a millionaire.

Once you've done the initial tests, then get funding together and do full drive cycle tests. At that time, the full drive cycle tests will be a small part of your operating budget, and will provide a solid base for advertising. Good luck.

And the test facility is right in your neighborhood!

*You want to make sure that the power level is such that the transmission remains in high gear, with the torque converter locked up. Manual transmission is helpful for consistent dyno runs.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

12/11/2009 8:16 AM

I recently heard about Ron and his groove mod in in a newsletter article. I went to his website to investigate. I've been interested in alternate energy enhancements and such for a while and have seen all kinds of scams and flame wars. In my experience, there have been so many scammers and clueless inventors that the forums are foaming at the mouth when "fresh meat" shows up. Hopefully everyone will keep a rational and respectful tone in getting to the truth.

In talking to Ron over the phone, he seemed sincere(I know, a worthless subjective opinion). His price for the mod is reasonable. He offers a money back guarantee that you are satisfied with it(no criteria for that as far as I can see).

I plan on having Ron's mod done on my '03 Forester, that I bought new. I've put 98k on it and am pretty familiar with how it "feels". Granted, this is subjective.

I do not plan to have a dyno done on it, but will do several runs with a Scangauge before and after to demonstrate to myself what results I am getting. Several fairly similar runs on the same stretch of the interstate and other open roads with the cruise control set should give me a crude test for mileage. I know that any reported data is automatically suspect unless done by a public reputable testing facility, so this is for my own curiosity. I might even get a spare TB from a junkyard so I can swap back and forth. I plan to do this sometime in the next month or two and will report.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

12/11/2009 9:24 AM

First of all, welcome to the insanity.

The modification to the throttle body should increase the responsiveness of your vehicle. Any other change is going to be unexpected, in my opinion. Good luck. Keep in touch, And the spare TB is an excellent idea.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

12/11/2009 6:57 PM

The modification to the throttle body should increase the responsiveness of your vehicle.

As I was driving today while carrying a large sheet cake, I was trying to accelerate very smoothly from a stop to keep the cake from sliding around in the back of my van. I couldn't help but think what a hassle it would be to have the factory designed-in throttle response rate changed -- it was already a little too abrupt for my needs. Perhaps a better word than "responsiveness" would be "abruptness".

Careful with your scan gauge, Bill -- they are right up there with cell phones for taking attention away from driving. It is fun to watch the load change on throttle opening. At low engine speeds, a small throttle change makes a relatively large change in the load reading (as it should). If you can focus on this while driving safely, you should see that, with the modification, the load will jump to a higher value just off idle than it did before.

Another thing you can do with the scan gauge is watch fuel flow in GPH. To see the effect of the groove, you'd almost need to have someone riding shotgun, because the update rate on the scan gauge is too slow for observing fuel flow right off idle. But if you have a clear road, and a helper, you could accelerate with 1/16 throttle before and after the mod, and observe fuel flow. After the mod you should expect faster acceleration and greater fuel flow.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

12/21/2009 6:28 PM

The dyno reports on both vehicles showed only a 1-4 increase in HP and Torque on both vehicles.

That being said, the owner of the 04 Ranger reported gains that will place him in the 100-150 mile per tank gain. This is Frank, owner of Mid-State Auto ar the intersection of First Ave and Center in Mesa.

The second vehicle done that day was a 93 GMC 1500. While the dyno showed minimal gains, the driver reported impressive gains in throttle response and power delivery at all engine speed. His name is Kyle Geng. I do not have his permission to release his number.

Remembering the dyno is geared for exploring HP and Torque gains only at high speeds and we are ONLY concerned with gains during what is considered "Consumer Level" driving.

Following the mileage gain report, Frank recommended the modification be done on his daughter's Mercury Mountaineer, a 97 model with a 5.0. This was done today.

For anyone who is beginning to consider this for their personal investigation, my offer still stands.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

12/23/2009 11:32 PM

Thank you, but if you've ever done consumer level work, which is where all my work is focused, then you would understand the limitations I face trying to be the segue between the mechanics (the men in the trenches) and the engineers (from their lofty perches).

Both have their strengths and are more than confident in their own abilities. The issues are in presenting each field of experts with a new concept that doesn't come from their books. Well, it DOES, but just not as I am presenting it. I have put together several different scientific principles to do something new and unique.

What I want is to have professionals investigate this in a professional way.

If you will go to www.YouTube.com/GadgetmanGlobal and look at some of the faces of my customers, you will soon understand why I am compelled to carry this forward, regardless of the resistance I face.

I hope in my words you will find something to believe. If not to believe, then perhaps to hear yourself saying those famous two words: "What if...?"

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

12/24/2009 1:43 PM

Hi Ron,

You wrote:

What I want is to have professionals investigate this in a professional way.

Professionals begin with a concept, and a plausible reason for that concept achieving the desired end. If they want "buy in" from others (to get funding together, for example) then they should be able to explain the concept in a way that makes sense to other professionals.

So, in your project, to show that the air "literally dances" down the intake tract into the cylinder, and that the flow is like "smoke rings" you would want to produce either photographs from a flow bench using flow visualization aids (which can be very expensive, what with the need for transparent throttle bodies, etc.)... or CFD printouts or links to CFD graphics, etc. Professionals will not be predisposed to believe your claim, because the flow around the throttle plate is already profoundly turbulent at low throttle settings (where your modification could measurably change the flow.) But the first thing you need to do to be treated as a professional, and to attract the attention of professionals, is to produce these flow visualizations.

You would also need to make a case for the usefulness of "literally dancing", and "waves", and "smoke rings". Ordinarily, all those things are things to be avoided in the intake tract, because turbulence generally reduces flow. (This is the reason people "port and polish" heads.) Your grooves are small enough, however, that at large throttle settings, you would not expect a measurable difference in any aspect of performance. At small throttle settings, you would expect the car to feel "peppier" to non-engineering types, (or from an engineer's perspective, to have too-abrupt off-idle throttle dynamics).

This aspect of your modification (abrupt off-idle throttle response) could very easily confuse non-engineers into thinking that your modification improves engine performance in some way that would produce better BSFC. You have provided no reason to think that it should, however. Therefore, to act professionally, so that professionals at universities will help you , you would need to provide a plausible explanation for fuel efficiency improvement with your device: why does dancing air make better fuel efficiency.

To act professionally, you will want to use the right tool for the job. An inertial Dynojet is not the right tool for the job of measuring fuel efficiency. Greg's lab has the right equipment, but as you can see, it is expensive to do legitimate tests. The actual EPA test sequence for such devices is at least three times as expensive as Greg's quote, and at a later stage you will want to run that full sequence at Greg's facility, but his initial runs would help you to gain credibility with professionals. But a better bet, is again, to work with a university, which will require that you make a plausible case for why your modification will work as you claim. I have not seen anything you have presented here or elsewhere on line that makes that case, but you may have information that you are not sharing.

2. Provide a rationale for a causative relationship between the flow patterns and fuel efficiency improvement. This relationship is non-obvious to those who have spent time running dynos, writing combustion texts, etc., so it needs to be spelled out clearly.

3. Make the case to a university for working together, because then the cost of dyno time, etc. will be lower, and the experience will be instructive for students. Universities are much better set up for incremental (low cost) tests than a lab like Greg's -- in other words, you can get a feel for whether your modification works as claimed with smaller scale tests. The obvious test here would be to use a real engine lab, with a small test engine -- you have claimed that your mod works on any normally-aspirated engine, so a single cylinder test engine would be the place to start, if you want to work with professionals.

If you are rebuffed in your approach to universities, feel free to run your pitch past us here, and perhaps we can make suggestions for gaining acceptance.

Incidentally, a gen-set can make a pretty good dyno (far better than a DynoJet for this purpose). You can easily control load in steps by adding water heater elements, large light bulbs, etc. So perhaps the best bet for convincing a university to work with you would be to show that your mod works to improve efficiency in a gen set. These have the advantage of gravity feed fuel systems, so a calibrated pipette can be use to measure fuel consumption. We used to use a setup very much like this for pretty accurately and repeatably measuring fuel consumption on motorcycle dynos. Certainly, if you believe your mod works, this would be a great way to demonstrate that it does, at almost negligible cost. If you don't already have a gen-set, buy one, use it long enough to prove your claims, and then sell it. The depreciation would likely be less than the income from one or two of your modifications.

You can even circumvent the first two steps and go directly to gen-set tests, which will convincingly show the effect of your mod at negligible cost. We look forward to seeing some results, and wish you success. You could have results in a just a couple days with this approach.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

I get instantly irritated when I see your responses to me. While they always offer valid suggestions and definitely show you to be highly educated, I feel the tone to be somewhat caustic.

This one is no exception at the start, but it would appear something changed by the end, for which I am grateful. So, let me contemplate and address your detailed letter as best I can (before I continue on my Christmas errands).

"Professionals begin with a concept, and a plausible reason for
that concept achieving the desired end. If they want "buy in" from
others (to get funding together, for example) then they should be able
to explain the concept in a way that makes sense to other professionals."

I recall myself being absolutely certain to avoid the whole money issue. Money concerns only cloud true science. I also did not ask for anyone to "buy in" at any level beyond to entertain the possibility that what I am saying is true. Once again, the evidence is ONLY evidence. What I presented was and is factual. My theories are only theories as to WHY these events occurred and continue to occur, whether or not you choose to accept them.

Fortunately, I feel your stance may be shifting and for that I am grateful. I would ask that you try to avoid descriptors that insert your opinion as widely accepted truths, i.e. "expect the car to feel "peppier" to non-engineering types, (or from an
engineer's perspective, to have too-abrupt off-idle throttle dynamics)." the word "too" is expansive and uncalled for in scientific evaluation. "Abrupt" would have been appropriate. Thank you.

If you cannot consider fluid dynamics as being affected by the shape of the conduit, then perhaps aerodynamics would be easier. Consider then the shape of a wing. Following that picture, consider the addition of "vortex generators", a growing method to increase the pressures over the ailerons to improve response to altitude adjustments.

They make the plane (forgive the non-engineering term. Pilots use it) "Peppier", "Responsive" although to you it may best be phrased as "Abrupt".

As to presenting to a University, perhaps you can make the introduction. it would give me great joy (and no small level of satisfaction) to present this modification before professionals in a laboratory setting and let THEM figure it out! That is, after all, why I bother to come back here again and again despite the negativity.

Science is science. If an observable phenomenon presents itself following a duplicatable series of events, yet is unexplainable, a true scientist begins an investigation. This is all I am doing. As I lack the letters after my name (what are your quals by the way?) as well as a laboratory and the connections and the reputation (and the list goes on and on) it is difficult (you have made it more difficult, sir) to be taken seriously.

Much easier it is for pretenders and professionals alike to defame and discourage than to think that something new is happening and to encourage research into unique phenomena.

As to my language, I see no issue there. I have been very plain and transparent as to my motives as well as my observations. I have continued to face the negativity with a plain presentation of the facts. I have noticed that you have challenged everything, but not in a meaningful way to me. Nothing that you have said has discouraged me or in anyway convinced me that anything I have said or observed is inaccurate or provable to be the result of known processes.

You are simply unwilling to experiment. What is more the pity is that you appear to be such an authority, yet are vehemently opposed to anyone ELSE experimenting (or is it just me?), lest they incur your wrath-as wonderfully phrased as it may be.

Once again, I will ask for all who read this: "If you have the facilities and the test equipment to provide the data, then I will take whatever measures are necessary to see that this modification to the intake airstream be tested-at YOUR facility, on YOUR equipment, subject to YOUR evaluations and your reports."

All I ask is that the test results be made freely available to the public.

I have done tests on industrial engines (the correct term, by the way, for single-speed engines) and the dynos were conclusive. A minimum gain in HP and Torque of 10% with an increase in runtime of at least 25%.

But even my dyno reports on cars were denied. And I expect any new offerings to be slandered until similar results are presented by someone respected within your circle. Hence, my offer to do the test at your facilities, or on a vehicle within your circle.

I know, for example, that Lyn would experience at least a 50 mile to a tank increase, for that has occurred on other identically equipped vehicles-with increased horsepower, throttle response, load-bearing, and shift patterns both without and under load.

Check with Frank at Mid-State Auto Service if you want to challenge me (have any of you requested additional reports form other unbiased observers? If so, I don't recall.)

Not one of you have said it would cause damage, yet there have been no takers on my offer for a free modification. So, I rescind that offer. I will, however, do one for a hundred dollars. No more freebies. BUT, you will not be obliged to pay if "The Gadgetman Groove" does NOT result in higher efficiency for your vehicle.

I renew my offer to present at an appropriate facility. Surely there is one person among you who has heard enough of this petty bickering and is willing to see if there's any substance to "The Gadgetman Groove" as being what I (and about 300 happy customers) am saying it is.

Just one proof of a lie is all it will take to get me to shut up.

Of course, the equal possibility exists that you will then be able to provide the proof that is required. THEN, we begin the next round of MORE proof to get the NEXT person who wants to deny the possibility of something new being discovered. The difference then will be I will have an ally among you.

I know what I know what I know. I offer to you from my field of experience in the hope it will open a new door for you all.

God bless you all and have a Merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous New Year!

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

Hope your holidays are going well, and that you prosper in the new year.

You wrote:

If you cannot consider fluid dynamics as being affected by the shape of the conduit, then perhaps aerodynamics would be easier.

Actually, I consider fluid dynamics and aerodynamics essentially interchangeable, particularly in this instance: the fluid involved is primarily air, with a tiny amount of atomized fuel. CFD is used in all areas of fluid dynamics, including aerodynamics.

That is, after all, why I bother to come back here again and again despite the negativity.

I am glad you have found something in my post more encouraging. None of my CR4 posts, here and elsewhere, are intentionally negative to any legitimate effort at improving fuel efficiency. On the contrary, I have offered several HHO promoters encouragement and suggestions to produce valid test results. So far, not one has acted on my suggestions.

You mentioned having known Greg. Did you test any of your HHO devices with him? If you have test data for the HHO devices that shows that your device worked as claimed, that could help bolster your claims re your new business. As you know, we'd all like to think that ad hominem arguments hold no water, but in fact, a reputation for doing good work can be helpful in getting a new business accepted. I gather the reason you are here is to gain acceptance, and showing that your previous claims were realistic could help, to that end.

As you probably know, engineers are paid to be skeptical -- to always ask "What could go wrong." We say "Show me the data." In areas like internal combustion engines (where there is a tremendous amount of evolutionary history and continuous improvements are still being made) the methods for measuring fuel efficiency have long been established. The data required is a no-brainer, and to minimize cost , working with small engines is typical in the development stage. As several have written here: show me the BSFC. You industrial engine data may be just what you need.

I have done tests on industrial engines (the correct term, by the way, for single-speed engines) and the dynos were conclusive. A minimum gain in HP and Torque of 10% with an increase in runtime of at least 25%.

This is great news, and I imagine you are kicking yourself for not having brought it up earlier! Show us those dyno runs! You'll note that several of us have mentioned BSFC. With these runs showing hp output and fuel consumed you have probably already done the BSFC calculations. If you take the videotape of these runs to a university (ASU would be a good bet to help get you hooked up with the right people in one of the universities with a strong automotive engineering program. Check with someone in their SAE Baja program.)

Once Georgia Tech is back in session, I'll see if I can drum up some interest there. In the mean time, if you can post your industrial engine test data, that would be helpful.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

01/08/2010 8:07 AM

Blink, it is my sincere hope the new year finds you having a wonderfully abundant life, as you most certainly deserve.

Where I have the greatest difficulty is in the ability others express to deny whatever evidence is presented, while picking apart such little (obvious) things such as my reference to fluid vs aerodynamics. Blink, you yourself have taken several of my comments posted years ago and offered them here in a negative light.

To which Greg do you refer? This post has become too lengthy to go back in a search for something else poorly referenced. And I keep telling you this is not a device, but you don't seem to hear that. Why do you keep asking for data on something that doesn't exist?

If you have been keeping up with the data I have been posting (the only kind that really cannot be forged) then you would be opening up to the possibilty there is something to what I say and start looking to validate it.

Look in the eyes of my customers and tell them you won't believe them either-can you? http://www.YouTube.com/GadgetmanGlobal

I am gathering more video testimonials, but I have a feeeling you will find fault with them as well. I think you are scared that someone else may have learned something that you didn't, and learned it ina different way: by experimenting and testing rather than reading what someone else has done.

I would like to ask you a favor, Blink.

As you appear to be more interested in your expert status than in using it to either validate or invalidate a new principle, would you mind either putting it to the test yourself or (as a courtesy) to stop telling me how I need to show you more data?

Forgive me for being too bold, but how about getting off your arse and testing it yourself? I have asked for no money and offered my tech on many occasions. What I have received is not supportive of testing, but presenting me in an artificially negative light. Why? because I cannot at present provide the data you request.

What makes it bad is that not one of you on this forum have offered to test it, although (conspicuous by its absence) not one of you has said it would hurt anything.

Pity.

To me, THAT is the waste of a great mind. To have the capability to make a difference in the world, but to sit in judgement waving your certificates and degrees at someone working the streets, pounding the pavement and actually working to make a better planet.

Once more, a call I offer to perform the modification for testing. I know there is at least one on this forum who is in the greater Phoenix area.

BTW: Lyn, if you want to call Frank at Mid-State, he might tell you about his experience with his F-series truck. Solidly up by 50-60 miles a tank.

Shall we try this again, gentlemen? For I have not the funding to pay for the testing you require.

God bless you all-especially the ones who stand quietly in the shadows listening and working. I know you are out there.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

I think everyone who has commented in this thread has offered help. Even the very brief comments have been helpful. For example, Franksgarage advice (post 17) is concise and right on the money:

Show me the brake specific fuel consumption before and after and we'll talk. And no I don't have $250.

BSFC is the gold standard. When I recently evaluated some commercial engines, I obtained the BSFC charts. For a small engine these can be produced inexpensively. You have claimed that your mod works on any normally aspirated engine, including small engines. You have also claimed that you have done dyno tests on such engines (you wrote: I have done tests on industrial engines (the correct term, by the way, for single-speed engines) and the dynos were conclusive. A minimum gain in HP and Torque of 10% with an increase in runtime of at least 25%.)

Then you would have to consider my advice that you should produce these dyno tests to be both very helpful and very positive. You've already spent the money for these tests, and they would go a long way toward winning us over, and that would help win others over, etc, etc. Unfortunately, the test curves you produced for the car don't show any fuel efficiency gain at all, but I hope that has not discouraged you. If you can produce your industrial engine results, that would help restore credibility, and could start a path to great success.

It's not that we are asking for all sorts of data. Just one good test with results in line with your claims would be a huge help.

You can see the problems we are working to overcome: 1. There has been no plausible scientific reason presented for any gain in fuel efficiency*. 2. There are plausible scientific reasons for people to be fooled into thinking that your mod improves engine efficiency: they push down to get 1/32 throttle and they get 1/16 or 1/8. 3. Your past HHO promotion is probably not adding to your credibility. (With HHO prosecution attracting so much attention, you need to be extra careful to present reliable data.) 4. You have not presented any data whatsoever that indicates that your modification actually improves fuel efficiency. Even your testimonials from people who note that the car seems "peppier" tend to support the science rather than your claims.

Fuel line magnet promoters provide testimonials from satisfied customers, but we all know that the magnets do nothing. Placebo effect can be very strong. So you can see that you need real dyno run data showing a difference in BSFC. I was glad to hear that you have such data, but am confused as to why you do not want to produce it. It would be hard to interpret my previous post encouraging you to produce the results as anything but positive. You have a skeptical audience here, and real data could turn things around for you.

Another very helpful post is Pantaz's #70: You said "dyno report" so I assumed you had BSFC values, among other data.

This helps orient you to the data engineers expect. This is also the kind of data the EPA also wants to see, to prevent "truth in advertising" problems.

Matt's post # 11 outlines a test process that would help get you some acceptance.

DrewK's advice in post 49 is also very helpful and positive. Getting your work published would be extremely beneficial.

I have offered to talk with people at Georgia Tech, but you seem to find that unhelpful also. You say "how about getting off your arse and testing it yourself?" Stunning as it may seem to you, you are neither my employer nor my wife.

Having GT test it is much more valuable than having me test it. However, I can set up a dyno here for a small engine... and even have a brand new small engine to use. I can spend perhaps two days running the tests, and would do it for a low rate. These tests will not be equivalent to the full EPA test routines for devices and modifications, but would satisfy virtually all of the CR4 types, I think, and I'd write up a test report for your use in obtaining funding, etc.

I'd use an electric dyno, and would run the engine at a constant load of about 40% of peak torque and about 40% of max rpm, for roughly 16% of max hp. (This would approximate the cruise condition of a 100 hp car outputting 16hp.) I'd run three half-hour runs in each condition (stock and grooved). I'd be willing to do this for $2000.

If you'd get off you arse and get together with a university on your side of the country you could have this done for nothing. You just need to be a little less abrasive and a little more tactful.

Yet more helpful advice was provided in this thread, by Jack:

Please be aware that numerous HHO, magnet, additive and other
pseudoscience and scam devices regarding cars have been assessed,
discussed and thoroughly dis-proven here over the years by myself and
others. I am not saying yours is one but it looks similar to previous
scam devices (hence the comments here by others).

This was intended to help you understand how engineers evaluate claims for fuel-saving gadgets and modifications, and highlights the need for something well beyond testimonials... which have always been available in abundance for every bogus fuel-saving gadget.

So... A lot of help and positive suggestions have been offered here. Odd that you seen to find them negative.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

07/19/2012 12:14 PM

I am having the "groove" put in my 1999 Ford F350 V10. I only get 8-10 mpg currently, and am excited to see the difference it makes. I will most definitely post my findings, whether good or bad. Cannot wait to get my truck back today :)

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

07/21/2012 5:31 PM

As of yet, the truck has been phenomenal. Barely have to touch the gas peddle before the truck wants to "Get up and go". It appears to have much more power, and the transmission seems to shift much 'cleaner'. I will be posting more info the next time I go get gas, along with when I get it smogged. :o)

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

07/23/2012 9:23 AM

I did have a few before readouts, and another 'after' , I will post those when I get the 'exact' before and after. Should be later this afternoon. My truck does need a tuneup that I will get in August, so who knows how much better it will run. I am going on 285k miles, and it still purrs like a kitten. I am by NO MEANS an expert on any of this, but I am thrilled as to the difference in performance as of the past few days. Almost cannot wait to get gas (although it is over 4 dollars here). Simply adding my two cents.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

07/24/2012 7:22 AM

Please read through the entirety of this thread (I know it is a lot but it will save us repeating ourselves). As you will see in this thread these scam artists provide many testimonials but no actual evidence. Evidence would be provided by a dyno test before and after installation.

This groove(?) and other vortex / tornado / spinning air gizmo is almost certainly a scam. Just like the magnetic fuel enhancers or water softeners. I hope you didn't pay too much for it. At best they clean out your carburetor and give it a tune up in the process of installing their junk, at worst it will actually hurt your economy.

There are kits out there that will improve your fuel economy or power, but they work by either restricting fuel and air (improving economy but costing power) or if you want more power they will increase the size of your jets and or carburetor and cost you more fuel.

Good luck

Drew K

__________________
Question: What is going on with the American's Government? Response: Who is John Galt?

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

07/24/2012 12:21 PM

BTW, is there a right and wrong direction to put the magnet on my fuel line? And, if I put one on my power steering line, will the steering be easier? What will happen if I put one on my A/C line? Do vampires buy life insurance?

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

07/24/2012 1:18 PM

"BTW, is there a right and wrong direction to put the magnet on my fuel line" On the Chick Magnet (which has finally worked BTW, so I won't be needing it anymore!), I tried the magnet under the 710 cap. Didn't seem to accomplish much.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

If groove modification increase the power at low rpm then it will make the car capable of getting better mileage. The next thing to advise to the driver is to utilize the new driveability at low rpm.

If at 55mph s/he usually use 4th gear, tell them to use 5th or even 6th gear. Driving 55mph at 5000rpm at 4th gear would be less efficient than 2000rpm at 5th gear. Even if groove modification worsen fuel efficiency, if it allow driver to utilize higher gear, then the driver would still receive much much better mileage. Anyone here should be more capable than me to calculate the fuel consumption of driving car at 55mph at 2000 rpm vs at 5000rpm.

About cost, how much it cost to shift car max power from the usual 6000rpm or more to say 2000 rpm?

I am a newbie, so I am not sure if there are car that have power maxxed at 2000rpm. I would love having a car capable of driving at 55mph at 1000 rpm :).

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

02/12/2010 6:14 PM

Hi Lyn,

First off, I'm a certified Gadgetman based in Utah. An article was written about me and the Gadgetman Groove on 12/7 at http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Gadgetman_Groove. In the article it provides before and after dyno results completed on my 2007 Toyota Tundra 4x4 with the 5.7 ltr engine. I had the Gadgetman Groove applied to my drive by wire throttle body in July 2009

Being a "mileage" skeptic, I requested the dyno testing to be done before and after so I could see for myself if there was any merit to the Gadgetman Groove. The dyno results prove an increase in horsepower and torque.

As for mileage, my truck went from 19.5 mpg up 24.1 mpg cruising at 65 mph. So for my investment, I consistently have achieved a 20% increase in hwy mileage.

I have performed several modifications over the last 6 months. As indicated through out the thread, throttle response was enhanced. Most of the mods I've completed resulted in mileage increases from 10% to 35%. Other mods enjoyed the increase in throttle response and didn't achieve a quantified increase in mileage. I had one mod go bad on a 2007 Chevy Silverado 5.3 ltr V8 (drive by wire). It wouldn't idle below 1800 rpm. I reversed the mod and came to learn what I had done wrong. Again addressed in the thread.

So for whatever reasons not fully understood, the Gadgetman Groove does work. It just doesn't work on everything....

I stumbled on to this thread this afternoon. Just thought I would add my 2 cents worth.

Re: Amazing Fuel Economy

07/24/2012 4:47 PM

I first tried a gadget groove on my 2001 PT Cruiser. The first change noticed was increased throttle response from a dead stop. I thought wow. That was going to be great. I drove the car for a couple of tanks of fuel and did not see any noticeable difference in economy. The groove did offer a car with more power response to drive. That being what it was, I did have one side effect, cruise control. My cruise control had a hard time maintaining 55mph hunting a stable rpm. The groove had evidently caused a sensitive spot. The increased power response was welcome to the PT. But the cruise control issue was a problem. Maybe the transition could have been smoothed out to resolve that issue. I never followed up.